Fancy Hand Plane advice

[Bryan Fowler]

Also, I happen to have the LN Rabbet 60 1/2.  Don't reach for it very often.  Thought it would be like the regular 60 1/2 but with a few extra tricks.  But it doesn't have an adjustable mouth, the blade shape is odd and a bit fiddly to get in and out of the body for sharpening, and you have to be very conscious of getting the blade to have just the right amount of very small overhang on each side to get it to work right.  It is a fiddly plane that excels in it's intended task of taking very small amounts off wider tenons and rabbets.  But I produce a lot more narrow rabbets than wide ones, and I don't often find myself reaching for it to trim tenons, either.  It's definitely not more convenient for conventional block plane tasks, and I wouldn't recommend it unless you frequently do what it is specifically designed for.

Good info on the rabbit 60.5 Might be easier to stick with simple, and if I need to spend more later I can have something on the list. I don't mind a little more work, but not when there's little tradeoff.

[Admiral]

Putting this one through it's paces...

Stanley "Cordovan" No. 60-1/2....making a beveled edge for a lid....wood is a bit "knotty", Aromatic Red Cedar....

I also have a #18.....and a #9-1/2.....they all get their share of work....

Actually, my only exception to the rule of not buying the maroon japanned Stanleys is the 60 1/2, simply because its hard to screw up a block plane.

That being said, the LV and LN versions are in a completely different league.

[Admiral]

The side rabbit trimmer looks cool. I don't do many rabbit joints, but I may if this helped it be more fun. =)

I'm lucky enough to have acquired a LN 98 and 99 (now discontinued) along the way, but boy they are the right tool for the job; done equally well by the LV version, and a vintage #79, but the 98-99 are really comfortable to use.  Vintage ones are out there but IMNSHO are overpriced, so I'd go with the LV.

On the LN rabbet block, I'll second JohnnyEgo, very specialized use.  Plus, for trimming tenon shoulders a LV medium shoulder plane cannot be beat (you are welcome to buy mine at my estate sale!), and for the cheeks I always use a router plane.

[rwe2156]

Bryan FowlerRight now I have, in no order

• Stanley #220
  
• Stanley #4
  
• Stanley #5
  
• Stanley #60 1/2
  
• Unknown red handled #5
  
• Maybe one more I can't remember, but obviously don't use.
  

I end up using the #5 a little bit, the low angle #220 for corners and chamfering. This is just a hobby. Mostly I'm using power tools, but grab the had tools for every project at least once. Might use them more if they made my heart tingle when I picked them up. =) 

I'm usually working with white oak (we have 600-700bd ft left) sapele, some walnut and probably hickory.
I've been looking at the LN #60 1/2, their #4, and maybe the #62.

The Stanleys you see in the big box stores are junk.  But check the vintage on any of the Stanley's that were  not, like the 5 probably.  If they are pre-1950 they are keepers, with maybe a little help like an aftermarket blade.  hyperkitten.com has a good dating algorithm.

If you're primarily a power tool user, you can get by with just a #4 and a block plane.

I have the LN low angle jack and don't use it very much.  The only reason I would suggest buying one is fi you want a few irons honed to steeper bevels - that could be a factor for you if you're hand planing a lot of white oak notorious for tear out.

Bottom line, unless hand tools are a significant part of your ww'ing methods, expensive premium planes sitting on the shelf 90% of the time seems a bit of a waste.

That said, focusing more on hand tool work definitely up your game, I have no doubt premium planes are a joy to use ;-)

And, BTW, ww'ing not not "just a hobby" LOL.....

[bandit571]

Actually, my only exception to the rule of not buying the maroon japanned Stanleys is the 60 1/2, simply because its hard to screw up a block plane.

That being said, the LV and LN versions are in a completely different league.

Only in the price....otherwise?    Dead even....but then..I'm NOT trying to sell planes to others....usual Tool Snobbery...

[Admiral]

Only in the price....otherwise?    Dead even....but then..I'm NOT trying to sell planes to others....usual Tool Snobbery...

This is just my experience.  The irons alone are like night and day compared to a stock stanley iron.  But believe what you want, I'm not going to argue with your experience, as I am certain you have compared the performance of the three planes to make your judgment.

[AHill]

I have the LN low angle jack and don't use it very much.  The only reason I would suggest buying one is fi you want a few irons honed to steeper bevels - that could be a factor for you if you're hand planing a lot of white oak notorious for tear out.

I have the LV LA Jack and I use it probably more than any other plane I have.  It's a do everything plane as long as you have more than one blade.  I use it for smoothing, shooting end grain, jointing (short boards) creating chamfers and a few other tasks.  My second most used plane is a LN 102.  Great for small work and trimming.  I know there are folks who have very strong opinions that a LAJ is a redundant plane, providing a solution for which there's no problem, but to me, it's quite versatile.  The only reason the original Stanley No. 62 version wasn't very popular was the castings and body geometry made it prone to cracking at the mouth.  The modern versions don't have this problem.

[bandit571]

This is just my experience.  The irons alone are like night and day compared to a stock stanley iron.  But believe what you want, I'm not going to argue with your experience, as I am certain you have compared the performance of the three planes to make your judgment.

Over-weight, over-priced, and over HYPED.   

Too many seem to think that rather than set up a plane correctly ( it's toooo much WORK) They can just drop in a thicker iron and it will cure all the troubles they perceive they have.


I find I can easily use that Vintage #60-1/2 with one hand....no chatter, can be set to the finest shaving I want.....

I have the Stanley 9-1/2 set up the same way....with the OEM iron...btw.   I do not consider a clumsy, way too thick iron an "upgrade"...more like a crutch.....

It MIGHT be an "upgrade" IF one gets a commission for selling those thicker irons....


The other day....was using a Sargent VBM 414c.....a Stanley No. 3, Type 11, AND that Cordovan No. 60-1/2....all with their ORIGINAL irons....no problems what so ever....

In the past..Have used almost every type of Maple,,,figured Cherry, White Oak, and some Walnut.....and with these type of planes.....the last "new & improved" iron I bought was sold at Home Depot....for $3 for a 2" wide iron.....

i prefer to spend all that money on wood for projects....rather than a shelf sitter to show off with....

[JohnnyEgo]

Different strokes for different folks. I use the hell out of my fancy pretty planes, and I also like looking at them being pretty on the shelf. Good thing neither one of us is responsible for each other's wallets, I suppose.

[jstraw]

After 30 years of buying and using both vintage and new planes, I can see both sides.

One camp can argue that if it’s a quality vintage plane, that’s not rust pitted to an inch of its life, with some work you can get a great functioning plane for a great price.

The other camp can argue that they can better use their time in the shop making something than restoring old planes.

My problem is I have to help a neglected vintage plane. If it’s restorable, I will restore and use all the original parts, including the blade. If the blade is severely pitted, I will use another vintage blade or an aftermarket blade.

I also have some new premium planes. The advantage I notice is it’s ready out of the box and the adjustment mechanism is more refined.

As far as looking pretty, if they work as advertised, it’s not long before the new ones look as old as the vintage ones, due to use. The pretty ones tend to be the ones that don’t work correctly.